starcraftfandomcom-20200213-history
User talk:Klomer
We sorely need some good tactics writers. Kimera 757 (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Alright. Happy to help. I'm about a D+ on Iccup, not a tremendous player, but been playing every day for years and can help get things started and leg up to higher levels if needed. I follow the KESPA tournies pretty closely, so I'm familiar with the pro strategies even if I can't pull them off myself. Where should I start? (link) Obvious places would be: * the unique aspects of sc gameplay compared to other modern rts (maps, building blocks, etc, that make modern play so compelling) * typical race matchups * units and unit counters * armor and stats Largely an update on the www.battle.net/scc page which is unfortunately rather out of date, but has great presentation. Klomer 04:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC) We already have info on armor and stats, so pretty much anything else. For instance, a TvP article (for terran vs protoss), counters, and named tactics (eg I'm pretty sure we don't have an M&M article). Thanks. Incidentally, if you ever need help, you can always ask me, and also recruit people from any communities or fansites you visit. :) Kimera 757 (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Armor page does cover the basics, but the way the armor and stats are organized it's impossible to compare them, and they only have meaning relative to other units stats and damage types. That's what makes http://www.battle.net/scc/terran/ustats.shtml such a critical page, but that's also missing a lot of detail (like unit speed). Klomer 19:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Were you suggesting rewriting the armor page, or actually changing the unit templates? Kimera 757 (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC) I think I'm suggesting a layout adjustment, both to make things easier to compare and find, and to spark new spaces for new content. The info that's there is great, just making it more accessible. What's the appropriate place to discuss? I raised on the gameplay category. Klomer 20:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC) That talk page is a better place. Note that it's basically impossible to change the layout of a category page, so maybe we should create a "Portal: Gameplay" page instead. Kimera 757 (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC) I've put together a very bare-bones Portal: Gameplay article. That talk page is probably the best place to discuss things. Kimera 757 (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC) I'd like to push forward some sort of more centralized reorg - right now the pages are very cluttered and not very easy to follow, trying to fulfill multiple purposes. Ideally it seems like there should be a cleaner (story) and (gameplay) race split, starting with the races and working down from their hierarchically, similar to b.net Klomer 08:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC) How do I embed videos? Klomer 08:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Like this: S20iGhAo1KY in order to view this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S20iGhAo1KY Just replace the random alphanumerics in order to change the video shown. Kimera 757 (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC) How do I mark something as a stub? Klomer 10:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Kimera 757 (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC) How do I have a page redirect to another one? (eg ghosts -> ghost) Klomer 11:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Put in this text: #Redirect ghost Kimera 757 (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC) How do I add a ? needs reference superscript in-line citation? Is there some other way to demarcate needs a reference later? Klomer 12:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC) or ?. Kimera 757 (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Re: Plural unit pages It hardly makes any difference, but if you redirect a page (especially to the top), there's usually a kinda ugly note that says "(Redirected from Ghosts)" or something along those lines at the top of the page (which is often the first thing a visitor sees). That's why I generally just put something like ghosts rather than ghosts. However, it's not a big deal. Also, at present, most of the plural pages don't exist. I could have made them into redirects, but hadn't because I was making a couple of minor edits to those pages as well, and just unpluralized the links as I was going. Kimera 757 (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Gameplay portal The talk page has been updated again. The idea is to use templates. So, something like would lead to the marine (StarCraft I) page, but the link would just look like a "marine" link. This would involve a lot of relinking, but there's no a lot of news right now, so most of our time would go there anyway. Kimera 757 (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Meco has given us a guide to writing lore articles at StarCraft Wiki:Writing unit lore articles. Looks like a lot of marine links will become marine (lore) links instead. Kimera 757 (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Re: References "Does every page with citations need a reference section?" Every page with citations needs a reference section, otherwise visitors can't see the references :) The video referencing formatting that you showed is fine. (I couldn't actually see the link on my talk page though.) "(Alternatively, this means we can't reuse citations for multiple examples - eg if there was also a muta micro example in the above game, it would need a different citation and a different link, which could be confusing) Klomer 07:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)" It might be a bit confusing, but if there's different time points referenced, they're effectively different references. Kimera 757 (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC) "Also, is there an easier way to set up references besides inlining? It makes the edit text harder to read. Klomer 07:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)" No :( Some pages get really messy when it comes to references. If things get complicated, I would suggest breaking the part of the page with lots of references into point form section (so each line only gets one or two references). Unfortunately, the referencing probably drives away contributors, other than wikipedia and a few other large, serious wikis referencing is generally haphazard. Kimera 757 (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC) "Heck, while I'm at it, is there style guide for referencing youtube as above? Is it the player or the video uploader? The date of the game or the date of the upload? The name of the video or something more relevant, since they are often cryptic? Klomer 07:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)" Since we hadn't used videos to denote strategy, I had always used the date of the upload, but the way you put it makes sense to. I had generally used the name of the uploader; you can put the names of the players in the video like so: Cool Strategy (Nada vs Saviour). But it sounds like we need to write an actual policy for youtube vids. Kimera 757 (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Awesome, thanks! I'm pretty happy with the way I set it up on the marine page after trying a few things. How about that? eg Boxer bunker rushes Yellow three games in a row. 1 VioleTAK. October 09, 2006. Accessed 2008-12-23. Most of the time you want to get right to the video and the why, the source is less relevant. It'd be even better if I could force youtube.com to jump to that part of the video through the link - that'd be perfect. If the amount of referencing becomes a distraction, there's got to be some sort of alternate solution - less referencing, shorter links, something. Let me try a few pages and then see how people feel. It's too early to see how valuable example videos are yet. Klomer 03:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Double Pages I read your points on Psi's talk page. You made some good points that I'm inclined to agree with, that on theoretical strategy pages, sourced info can be kept along with fan-submitted info, the former used to expand upon the latter, or even refuted. At this point in time, I'd be happy to have a strategy page for each unit that appeared in StarCraft and its expansion-the core page contains both lore and unit info that's sourced and/or basic info, whereas the stragey page can go on ad infinitum. As lore isn't infinite, we can't really specialize in such pages, but as unit strategy isn't, I think they can have special pages as per unit. At this point in time, I think it's best to wait until at least the SCII beta is released before creating strategy pages for unit appearances in SCII and wait for Wings of Liberty before creating strategy pages for campaign-only units. At this point in time, few, if any of us have had hands-on experience with the game, which is more or less the defining point for such entries.--Hawki 04:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC) I think a forum could centralize discussion, but in this case, it was best you posted in Psi's talk page, given that you were addressing points I made to him.--Hawki 05:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Awesome. I agree that since SC II is still a loooong ways off it's best to wait for a while and focus on getting as much SC1 strategy content up as we can. To be clear, what I was suggesting was that gameplay/strategy is also fairly fixed, and while parts can be specialized better then lore, I'm guessing it's more relevant to users (any data on this?) so it's important to have some strategy as well as gameplay on the front page to demonstrate value and show the specialized pages. Same sort of thing with lore, too. Maybe something like a paragraph on lore, a few paragraphs on basic gameplay, and a few on strategy, with links to specializations? The basic gameplay/strategy StarCraft, while long, should stay fairly fixed, particularly if we specialize out some of the detail. Very little changes - it's sort of like what happens to lore with novels. A new style comes out and a bunch of new pages show up and a few change, but most of the matchups and style of the game stay the same. Klomer 05:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC) We have data such as how many people visit the sites and which pages they're coming from. It's almost all from wikipedia or google, though, so it's not very specific. I agree we should hold these discussions in forums, and maybe copy/move the discussions there so we can see all the points. I'm so confused right now (real-life distractions, etc) that I can't really speak coherently about this. Kimera 757 (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Turns out the forum already exists at Forum:Lore and gameplay article split. It's looking pretty empty right now, though. Kimera 757 (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Maybe a front page poll? Klomer 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Savior vs Saviour It's probably not a big deal yet, but the Savior page doesn't actually exist yet. (It's currently a redirect to the Saviour mission article, so I'll delete that.) If Blizzard switches the mission name to the American spelling, um, what'll we do? :) We'd need a disambiguation page. Kimera 757 (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)